BitTorrent Whiz Extolled Piracy? --Wired

By Katie Dean and Kevin Poulsen

02:00 AM Jun. 30, 2005 PT

BitTorrent programmer Bram Cohen may be in legal jeopardy after the discovery on Wednesday of an old agenda buried on his website saying he creates programs to "commit digital piracy." The polemic would have been of little interest a week ago. But on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the intent behind a file-sharing program can be a decisive factor in determining whether the creator can be sued for its users' copyright infringement.

Cohen said the agenda was written years before he started work on BitTorrent, and that it was written as a parody of other manifestos.

"I wrote that in 1999, and I didn't even start working on BitTorrent until 2001," Cohen said. "I find it really unpleasant that I even have to worry about it."

Undated and less than 200 words long, Cohen's "Technological Activist's Agenda" says he creates and gives away software in furtherance of laissez-faire political objectives.

"I further my goals with technology," the manifesto reads. "I build systems to disseminate information, commit digital piracy, synthesize drugs, maintain untrusted contacts, purchase anonymously and secure machines and homes."

In a unanimous ruling penned by Justice David Souter, the Court found that file-sharing software companies Grokster and StreamCast Networks can be sued because "the record is replete with evidence" showing the companies took steps to encourage infringement. The case has been returned to the lower courts for trial.

Cohen has never publicly encouraged piracy, and he has consistently maintained that he wrote BitTorrent as a legitimate file-distribution tool. That would seem to make him and his budding company, BitTorrent, safe under the Grokster ruling.

But legal experts worry the newly discovered manifesto extolling "digital piracy" could put him on less certain legal ground.

"Before I saw the manifesto, it always seemed clear to me that he's had a very clean record," said Mark Schultz, a law professor at Southern Illinois University Law School. "A good lawyer will try to nail him to the wall with that, and any other statements they can find. It's circumstantial evidence of intent. It's not a slam dunk but it hurts his case a little."

Cohen said although he contributed to an earlier peer-to-peer tool, MojoNation, the text wasn't alluding to that system either.

Rather, his agenda was intended as a parody of the "Cypherpunk's Manifesto," a 1993 text that guided the pro-privacy cryptographic coders movement.

Indeed, the "Technological Activist's Agenda" doesn't strictly reflect his actual views on intellectual property, or, for that matter, anonymity or recreational drug use, he said.

"That was written in a combative confrontation style; I wasn't really talking about anything," said Cohen. "It was a reaction-getting thing.... I think it's pretty clear the way that was written is that it was written in voice. It was an exaggerated character speaking it."

Cohen said he's unhappy that the Supreme Court's decision is forcing him to confront something he wrote more than five years ago.

"The way they talked about intent is so vague that it can cause people to pay attention to things that they wrote years and years ago, having nothing to do with what they're doing right now," Cohen said.

"Anybody who thinks that they might produce technology at some point in the future that might be used for piracy has to watch everything that they say," he added.

Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represented StreamCast Networks in the recent case, said Cohen has a good point.

"I don't think it's anything that Bram needs to worry about but the Supreme Court seems to think that everything is relevant to the discussion," he said. "It raises the question of (whether) anything you've ever said can be used as evidence against you later."

But von Lohmann said if the Motion Picture Association of America wanted to go after Cohen, it would have done it a long time ago.

"I've heard them say they are not interested in going after Bram," von Lohmann said. "I take them at their word on that."

Ashwin Navin, BitTorrent's chief operation officer, said the company isn't worried about the manifesto's legal implications, but is afraid that some may seize upon it as proof that the company is pro-piracy.

"Our worry is that journalists will pull this out of context," said Navin. "It's not a business problem. It's more of a PR problem."

Kori Bernards, a spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America said "we want to work with people like Bram and others to come up with a solution to the problem of illegal trading of copyrighted material.... With regards to (what he said about) digital piracy, we hope he's changed his mind."

I think someone is grasping at straws.

I think they are just trying to slur him and Bittorrent and put the 'frighteners' on him and other developers. It's very low of them. But to be expected from the enemy. I think Bram's business venture through Bittorrent is rather misguided in the current climate though. OK I understand he wants to earn a living from his hard work. But not with this.

I do not think Bram had any "gift to the people" in mind at all.

He is on record stating that his creation/work was in itself it's OWN reward to HIMSELF.

Bram is a true "geek" who only did it so far as it pleased and tickled his own brain
in the "problem/puzzle solving" sense.

From what I have read/heard/understand,
he cares little if the "tool" is used for good or ill.

Shawn Fanning #2?

We will wait and see. But don't put genious on any sort of pedistle unless you are ONLY exhaulting the ingenuety itself.

Do NOT think that any of these 'wiz-kids' are "copyright saviours"

(THAT job belongs to ALL of US!)

These 'techno innovators" are more interested in "innovating technology" than they are in giving a sh*t where the rocket lands.

From what I know of the man, if you put a puzzle in front of Bram Cohen he feels pretty much compelled to solve it. The puzzle that became the BitTorrent solution had nothing to do with who "owned" what content but how businesses and other content providers could disseminate content seamlessly and with a much lower demand to their resources. Every interview he's ever given Cohen has stated that he wasn't even thinking of what people might do with his product, he was simply conquering a challenge and creating a tool for businesses.

And I've said before, businesses use BT! Software creators are using it to circumvent the costs of brick and mortar store sales while providing instant gratification to a market desperate for just such a thing. Individual content creators are using it to give away and sell their content. ("Star Wars: Revellations" anyone? Ok so it might not have been good but I applaud them for embracing BT!)

Dangit, as a content creator, I use BT! Independant authors, musicians, filmmakers, software creators, these were the people Bram wanted to help with his program.
_________
Also, thank you SCOTUS for being oh-so-clear about the responsibilities of companies in end user behavior:

Does this mean we can start suing the manufacturers of DVD players if people use them to view child porn?

Lets sue the makers of hunting knives every time there's a stabbing.

Oh and don't forget the gun manufacturers, those nasty, evil criminal facillitators.

(Sarcasm here in case ya couldn't tell, I may be liberal, but I looooove the 2nd Amendment.)

Our "Founding Fathers" were smart enough to let the people have the right to be armed so we could rise-up and over-throw when things got too bleak.

(Example, corporations or other entities taking over the government.)

Okay, but I've got a question. Say you buy a cd at a 'superstore'. You don't copy it. You don't even get to play it or listen to it because it's screwed up out of the package. Maybe it's a Mac format and you wanted PC format? Who cares why, but for some odd reason you want to return the item.
Now, we all know most stores have a 'policy' for opened v. unopened media items. They have to be unopened to be returned for a full refund in most cases. What's the logic there? how do I know it's gorfed if I didn't open it?
Your friendly neighborhood customer service person has two options.

Option 1. Argue with you. "It's opened, so you can ONLY exchange it for an exact copy". This due in a large part from the store telling people it's ILLEGAL to take it back open! Which is a total, blatant, lie right?
Option 2. Take it back. "The Customer is always right and we should do everything we can to keep them happy". Good thing we have people like me out here to take this option.

The point is, under the new ruling... wouldn't the stores be able to cite THAT as a reason for not taking back gorfed or wrong media type items? IS IT actually 'enabling piracy' for them to take back something that could, possibly, maybe, just might have been.. copied?
I think not! I also see this happening tho, as much as I hate to say it. Stores will be using this to pad their sales, keep down the return rates and basically harass and extort money from people who have a product they CANNOT USE!
ttmmm

"From what I know of the man, if you put a puzzle in front of Bram Cohen he feels pretty much compelled to solve it."

"Every interview he's ever given Cohen has stated that he wasn't even thinking of what people might do with his product..."

"...after the discovery on Wednesday of an old agenda buried on his website saying he creates programs to 'commit digital piracy.'"

He can say whatever he wants. The dumbass wrote down his true initial intent. And if he wrote it in 1999, the term "digital piracy" seems an odd choice of words for a pre-Napster agenda.

Evil Overlord Rule #1
Do not write down your plan to rule the world.

"He can say whatever he wants. The dumbass wrote down his true initial intent. And if he wrote it in 1999, the term "digital piracy" seems an odd choice of words for a pre-Napster agenda."

The mp3 technology existed before Napster. Albums were being traded just as they are now, before napster. Napster made .mp3 common for people like you. I've heard the term "digital piracy" going back to the late 80s on elite bbses. This is nothing new to me. Apparently, it's new to you. How sad.

As for dumbass, I don't agree with you there. Bittorrent is actually decent technology. I don't see you writing anything like it. Wait, your not even a programmer? Argh.. why do I bother.